ArticleDigital health
Exploring the value of three-dimensional printing and virtualization in paediatric healthcare: A multi-case quality improvement study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional printing is being utilized in clinical medicine to support activities including surgical planning, education, and medical device fabrication. To better understand the impacts of this technology, a survey was implemented with radiologists, specialist physicians, and surgeons at a tertiary care hospital in Canada, examining multidimensional value and considerations for uptake. Objectives: To examine how three-dimensional printing can be integrated into the paediatric context and highlight areas of impact and value to the healthcare system using Kirkpatrick's Model. Secondarily, to explore the perspective of clinicians utilizing three-dimensional models and how they make decisions about whether or not to use the technology in patient care. Methods: A post-case survey. Descriptive statistics are provided for Likert-style questions, and a thematic analysis was conducted to identify common patterns in open-ended responses. Results: In total, 37 respondents were surveyed across 19 clinical cases, providing their perspectives on model reaction, learning, behaviour, and results. We found surgeons and specialists to consider the models more beneficial than radiologists. Results further showed that the models were more helpful when used to assess the likelihood of success or failure of clinical management strategies, and for intraoperative orientation. We demonstrate that three-dimensional printed models could improve perioperative metrics, including a reduction in operating room time, but with a reciprocal effect on pre-procedural planning time. Clinicians who shared the models with patients and families thought it increased understanding of the disease and surgical procedure, and had no effect on their consultation time. Conclusions: Three-dimensional printing and virtualization were used in preoperative planning and for communication among the clinical care team, trainees, patients, and families. Three-dimensional models provide multidimensional value to clinical teams, patients, and the health system. Further investigation is warranted to assess value in other clinical areas, across disciplines, and from a health economics and outcomes perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.